CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

350 ITR 327High Court2013#170 most cited

What is CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

425

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. · 350 ITR 327 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 139(1) · EPF ESI deduction · employee contribution · due date payment · Himachal Pradesh High Court · Provident Fund · Employees’ State Insurance

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 158bsection 36(1)(va)section 158section 43bsection 132asection 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2548/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Pvt.ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.2547/Mum/2021 AY. 2017-18 6 Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2440/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2113/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

For Appellant: Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); ITA No. 363/Mum/2022 A.Y.2017-18 6 NM Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India…

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Gyaneshwar Kataram &For Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2309/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ssessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No. 2309/Mum/2021 A.Y.2019-20 6 Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CPC, Bangalore 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2054/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 274/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…ursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same areas under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra); 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 273/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…ursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same areas under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra); 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); ITA No. 316/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 6 M/s Shankar Packagings Limited Vs. NFAC, Delhi 7. Spectrum Consultants India (…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 19/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.26,09,757/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Page 7 of 16 C…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Lucknow vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT -6, Lucknow New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 18/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.36,47,045/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Page 7 of 16 C…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 143/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…